Dr. Laurie Adkin (Political Science, UofA) speech before the honorary degree ceremony, University of Alberta, March 1, 2012

February 27-March 1, 2012

“Two of these things belong together; one of these things just doesn’t belong.”

–Sesame Street song

I am grateful for this opportunity to debate the rationale that has been offered to us, so far, for the University Executive’s decision to award an honorary degree to the Chair of Nestlé’s Group.  My particular focus is how we can understand the Executive’s decisions regarding the honorary doctorate and the Water Initiative, and its responses to the ethical and governance issues raised by its endorsement of Nestlé. The two key questions, for me, are: why did the honorary degrees committee of the Senate—which is chaired by the Chancellor, and on which both the President and the Provost sit—decide to award Mr. Brabeck-Letmathe an honorary doctorate, and; second, why should we care?  What leads us to stand here today, risking frostbite and disapproval?

The President has said that the Swedish International Water Institute Industry Award was  given “significant weight” in the honorary degree committee’s decision to offer Mr. Brabeck-Letmathe an honorary doctorate (Colloquy Blog post, February 9, 2012). This award was, in fact, given to Nestlé, for its achievements in conserving water within its operations (and by an institute that Nestlé has funded[1]). But she has contradicted this rationale by also insisting that the degree does not honour Nestlé, but rather, Brabeck-Letmathe’s individual intellectual contributions to debates about water management.[2] The main work referred to in support of Mr. Brabeck-Letmathe‘s intellectual contributions is a report prepared by the 2030 Water Resources Group[3] (2009, World Bank) in which Mr. Brabeck-Letmathe participated.[4] This report outlines a number of technology and market-based approaches to reducing water use. These range from water pricing (which we already have, in a form, in Alberta) to the creation of a water bank or spot market for water.[5] In his role as Chair of Nestlé’s Group, Mr. Brabeck-Letmathe has publicly stated his view that water (apart from that used for drinking and hygiene) should be treated as a commodity, like “any other foodstuff.”  He also considers the view, promulgated by NGOs, that access to water is a human right, to be “extreme.”[6]

As a political economist who teaches environmental policy, I can tell you that such market-based approaches have been around for a long time; many books and articles have been published by economists that call for the use of price mechanisms to regulate natural resources. Many environmental organizations, and even some Green parties, support such approaches.[7]

The key point here is that Mr. Brabeck-Letmathe’s published statements and the World Bank report don’t really constitute a substantial body of scholarly work or add much that is new to the existing literature on the treatment of water as a resource. So I conclude that the reason for selecting Mr. Brabeck-Letmathe must rest mainly on what the Chancellor and President refer to as: “His recent advocacy and leadership calling attention to water issues worldwide [that] is challenging industry and government to take quick action” (Hughes and Samarasekera, Colloquy Blog post, February 9, 2012).

This explanation fits better with their statement that awarding the honorary doctorate to Mr. Brabeck-Letmathe serves the purpose of generating debate about conflicting approaches to the management and conservation of an increasingly scarce resource. Of course, it was completely unnecessary to bestow an honorary doctorate on Mr. Brabeck-Letmathe in order to hear his views about water pricing or the creation of markets in water rights. On the other hand, the honour does smooth the way for his involvement in the so-called “Water Initiative,” and, possibly, for corporate lobbying of the provincial government with regard to the model it adopts for water regulation. There is some evidence that discussions between Nestlé and the Alberta Government have already been taking place.[8]

We do know, now– thanks to the Council of Canadians– that the President has been putting together something called a “Water Initiative” for the University of Alberta, and that Mr. Brabeck-Letmathe and other corporate leaders are being approached to participate in its “advisory committee” or board. This was confirmed by the President in her interview with the Journal’s Sheila Pratt, published February 27/28, 2012. In that interview, the President also notes that the “provincial government has identified water as one of its key priorities in its economic outlook.”  We may infer from this that the President wants to position the University of Alberta to receive provincial (and corporate) funding as a global centre for water-policy-related research.

We might be forgiven for asking– in the current context of the corporatization of university funding and research—if the courting of corporate leaders for the advisory board is a step toward aligning the university’s research with perceived provincial policy goals. Although President Samarasekera has recently promised—under media questioning—that the advisory board will be “balanced” in its representation of interests and perspectives, such balance is not currently evident in the preliminary list of members. This was noted today by an editorial in the Edmonton Journal.[9]

So this would seem to be our best answer, given what we know to date, to the question: “Why Brabeck-Letmathe?” That is, this is an award for corporate leadership for “policy innovation”; it is a move to position the University to receive benefits from the provincial government and the private sector.

Why is this rationale problematic?  Clearly, part of the answer to this is: “because of Nestlé’s particular record as a producer of bottled water, its marketing of baby formula in environments that result in infant illness or death, and its labour practices.” However, I think there is another answer that is bigger than Nestlé’s particular record as a multi-national corporation.  Is Nestlé so much more profit-driven and irresponsible in its social and environmental practices than other MNCs—including some that also currently fund research at the University of Alberta? I think not; indeed, there is a case to be made that Nestlé’s Group is performing better in some respects than other MNCs. But it remains a powerful market actor with market-driven interests.

The bigger problem is that the grouping of Brabeck-Letmathe with the other degree recipients serves to erase a boundary between the public and the private whose existence is critical to the traditional purposes of the university. This is like the old Sesame Street song: “Two of these things belong together; one of these things just doesn’t belong.” The lack of fit jumps out at those of us who question whether success in the corporate world is equivalent to contribution to the public good. And this is not the first time that we might have questioned the granting of an honorary doctorate to a corporate titan, since this happened in 2002 (Eric Newall) and 2006 (Gwyn Morgan).[10] On this occasion, the lack of fit is perhaps more glaring because the corporate recipient of the degree, Nestlé, is being honoured for contributions to a public interest (water regulation) that it has been accused of undermining. (The conflict would have been more salient earlier had Eric Newall and Gwyn Morgan been nominated for honorary doctorates because of their corporations’ contributions to “environmental sustainability,” or “reduction of greenhouse gases.”)

The invitation of Nestlé’s Chairperson to sit on a Water Initiative advisory committee is problematic for the same reason: the uncritical identification (by university administrators, in this case) of corporate and government interests and priorities with those of the public, or the university. There is a difference between private interests and public interests, and the debate going on here today is not only about approaches to water regulation, but about which interests the university has a mission to serve.

The problem lies, thirdly, in the executive decision-making approach that is used to advance the Executive’s vision of what the university‘s priorities should be. In her CBC radio debate with Professor Kaler on February 28th, President Samarasekera insisted that the decision to offer Mr. Brabeck-Letmathe an honorary doctorate of laws was the result of “due process.” “Due process,” for the President, seems to mean: “The Senate honorary degrees committee (whose membership is secret) reviewed the nominations and made a selection.” Does that mean they are not accountable to the university community for their choices? That members of this community—or those beyond the campus—have no right to question a decision that appears to be a very poor fit with the norms of honorary degree awards? (By the way, I’m sure that when Dr. Samarasekara suggested – in her debate with Dr. Kaler — that the trouble around this honorary doctorate is being stirred up by “activists,” what she meant to say was that she applauded faculty and students for actively exercising citizenship.)

Shall we not ask whether “due process” also means “due diligence,” as in, doing one’s research, consulting with faculty who might have expertise in the operations of multinational corporations or in food and water policy?  Did the senate committee do this? Might they thereby have avoided bringing highly negative attention from around the world to the University of Alberta?  Did they really never consider the possibility that bestowing an honour upon the former CEO and current Chair of Nestlé’s Group – and for contributions to water management – would be viewed as morally questionable –even perverse (with regard to its role in the global market for bottled water)? If so, then their decision was poorly informed by the available research in the public health and social sciences fields, and suggests the need for broader representation on the Senate committee, or, at least, for making a broader range of expertise available to the committee when it is vetting nominees.

Did they consider the possible objections but decide to go ahead anyway, in the interest of some other desired outcome, and perhaps counting on the quiescence of the student body, the professoriate, and the media? We can only speculate about this.

I was also struck by President Samarasekera’s comment in her debate with Professor Kaler that it is inconsistent of faculty members to protest the outcomes of “collegial governance.” Is it collegial governance when a group calling itself “The University” takes a decision—essentially in secret (until the Journal interview published February 27th) — to create an “initiative” and to constitute that ”initiative’s” advisory board? Let’s stop for a minute and ask ourselves what’s really going on here. I know I am not alone in wondering what, precisely, collegial governance means, if it excludes open and inclusive deliberation among colleagues about decisions that affect us, and about which we care.

Never mind that the 100 university faculty identified as doing water-related research appear not to have been consulted about the establishment of this new focus for the university’s global profile—what about the rest of the university? What about Alberta citizens? Given the work we do, many of us have ideas about how the university might develop a critical mass of interdisciplinary scholarship in environmental policy questions (of which water is one nodal point). Why does the Executive not begin by soliciting input from those already on the ground – already working here, and connected to broader networks?  Why begin by linking the “water initiative” to the views and practices of corporations like Nestlé? Why not start by bringing your own faculty and students into a conversation about what the university can and should contribute to water policy research? (Or, for that matter, whether “water” is the best way to frame current research priorities, rather than, say, a more holistic approach, like “environmental policy”.)  And why does a university-based “water initiative” drawing upon 100 or more researchers need an “external advisory committee”? What is its purpose? What will it cost?

The process to date leads us, inevitably, to ask if the honorary doctorate for Nestlé and the “Water Initiative” amount to another instance of the university executive superimposing upon the faculty a vision of what we do and why we do it that corresponds to priorities and interests shaped elsewhere – by powerful market actors and neo-liberal governments. In this sense, the Brabeck-Letmathe controversy is symbolic of a larger conflict in which we are all engaged–about public interest and the roles of public institutions, and about the governance practices we need to defend them.

Notes:

[1] Information about Nestle’s contributions to the SIWI is available on SIWI websites and the websites of NGOs active in water issues. Scott Harris of the Council of Canadians notes: “For years (and under protest by activists) Nestle funds SIWI’s Water Week to the tune of $45,000 a year. (In 2011) SIWI gives Nestle its Industry Award, which the U of A uses to justify (Nestle chair) Peter Brabeck’s honorary degree. Now it turns out that SIWI’s ED (Anders Berntell) is leaving on March 1 to become ED of the 2030 Water Resources Group of the (International Financial Corporation, the private sector arm) of the World Bank, which set up in 2011 its 2030 Water Resources Group Phase 2 Entity to partner with the world’s largest water corporations on water policy. The chair of the WRG? Peter Brabeck-Letmathe of Nestle.”

[2] In her Edmonton Journal interview with Paula Simons, published February 15, 2012, President Samarasekera was quoted as saying: “”This guy is an intellectual. We give honorary degrees to intellectuals of distinction, controversial or not.”  (He is an intellectual in Gramsci’s sense of an organic intellectual of the ruling class—possibly a particularly effective one.)

[3] The 2030 Water Resources Group includes: The International Finance Corporation, McKinsey & Company, The Barilla Group, The Coca-Cola Company, The International Finance Corporation, Nestlé S. A., New Holland Agriculture, SABMiller plc, Standard Chartered Bank, and Syngenta AG.

[4] We should note, however, that the report was authored by four individuals who worked for McKinsey & Co. See p. 174 of the report for the list of authors. The corporate leaders signed the preface.

[5] The discussion of case studies in chapter 5 of this report suggests that the authors would view Alberta (like Australia) to be a jurisdiction with the capacity to create a water market or water trading among established rights-holders within particular “basins”. In a 2010 interview, Brabeck-Letmathe says: “Trading water locally, similar to the program Alberta is developing, can contribute to a more efficient allocation for growing food” (quoted in Finlayson 2010, my italics).

[6] The source for this is the youtube video in which he talks at some length about his views (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qyAzxmN2s0w). I was unable to find publications in which Mr. Brabeck-Letmathe set out his policy prescriptions in detail; he is quoted in a number of stories in the business media, and has co-authored a few commentaries in the same publications. (See the references.) In a September 2011 interview he was quoted as saying: “‘Take away the emotion of the water issue . . . Give the 1.5% of the water [that we use to drink and wash with], make it a human right. But give me a market for the 98.5% so the market forces are able to react, and they will be the best guidance that you can have. Because if the market forces are there the investments are going to be made”‘ (quoted in Carney 2011, A13).

[7] Indeed, much of this report consists of classic ecological modernization prescriptions of the kind that are commonplace in Europe, but have not yet penetrated the laissez-faire mode of regulation in North America. For example, the report observes that: “Government policy can help align industrial behavior with efficiency objectives, forming a key component of a reform program.  It is critical to ensure incentive design emphasizes the value of water productivity—for example through clearer ownership rights, appropriate tariffs, quotas, pricing, and standards—and at the same time recognizes the impacts such incentives can have on the companies’ profitability” (2030 Water Resources Group, 21).

[8] Brabeck-Letmathe was invited to speak to the Alberta Institute for Water Research in Lethbridge in 2010 (http://ai-ees.ca/home/initiatives/success-stories/water-resource/education-outreach-water-management). See also Finlayson (2010). In June 2011, Brabeck-Letmathe told a Reuters journalist: “We are actively dealing with the government of Alberta to think about a water exchange.” Quoted in “Turning Water into Money,” Maclean’s Magazine report, July 7, 2011, http://www2.macleans.ca/tag/alberta/.

[9] The Edmonton Journal editorialized today that there is reason to be concerned—as Maude Barlow is – that industry-government discussions about water regulation will go on behind closed doors (just as the development of this “water initiative” has), and that ) “inviting discussion . . . under the public spotlight that is already focused on this advisory group is preferable to backroom conversations and boardroom deals between government and industry.” See “Diverse Water Panel Welcome Idea,” Edmonton Journal, March 1, 2012, http://www.edmontonjournal.com/story_print.html?id=6231494&sponsor=.

[10] In 2002 an honorary doctorate of laws given to Eric Newell, who was, at the time, the CEO of Syncrude (until 2004, when he became Chancellor of the U of A) http://www.nexeninc.com/en/Governance/BoardofDirectors/BoardBios/EricNewell.aspx.

In 2006, Gwyn Morgan was awarded an honorary doctorate. Morgan was CEO of Encana until 2005. He is now Chairman of SNC-Lavalin Group Inc., and a member of the board of directors “the world’s largest global bank,” London-based HSBC Holdings plc. He is a Trustee of the Fraser Institute, the Manning Centre for Building Democracy, and the Dalai Lama Center for Peace and Education.  He made a presentation at the U of A in October 2011, entitled: “If universities were in business, they’d be out of business” (http://www.giving.ualberta.ca/en/Innovative-Leaders/2011_2012Lecture%20Series/Gwyn%20Morgan.aspx).

References

Baby Milk Action. 2012. “Nestlé Chairman brings shame to the University of Alberta.” Media release, February 10. http://info.babymilkaction.org/pressrelease/pressrelease10feb12.

Ball, Deborah. 2010.  “Bottled Water Pits Nestlé’s vs. Greens.” The Wall Street Journal (Europe Business News), May 25. http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704414504575243921712969144.html

Brabeck-Letmathe, Peter, Asit K. Biswas, and Lee Kuan. 2011. “Putting a Price on Clean Water.”Wall Street Journal – Eastern Edition, March 21. A15.

Brabeck-Letmathe, Peter. 2010. “Comment: Pay the true price of water: South Africa recognises that not all water use is a basic human right. The rest of us should follow.” The Guardian (Comment and Debate Pages), 24 June.

Brabeck-Letmathe, Peter. 2009. “H20.” Foreign Policy no. 172 (May/June): 93.

Brabeck-Letmathe, Peter. 2008. “A water warning.” Economist 112.

Brabeck-Letmathe, Peter. 2008. “Biofuels are Indefensible in Our Hungary World.” [sic] Wall Street Journal – Eastern Edition, June 13, A13.

Brabeck-Letmathe, Peter. 2008. “Remedies for wasteful water management.” Banker 10.

Brabeck-Letmathe, Peter. 2007. “We need to challenge our current ways of working.” International Commerce Review — ECR Journal 7, no. 1: 10-14.

Carney, Brian M.  2011. “The Weekend Interview with Peter Brabeck-Letmathe: Can the World Still Feed Itself?”The Wall Street Journal, September 3, A13.

CBC Radio. Edmonton AM. 2012. “Honorary Degree Debate,” Professor Amy Kaler and President Indira Samarasekera interviewed by Edmonton AM host, February 28, http://www.cbc.ca/edmontonam/episodes/2012/02/28/honorary-degree-debate/.

Council of Canadians. 2012. “Nestlé chair invited to join who’s who of water privateers on new University of Alberta water board.” Media release, February 28, http://canadians.org/media/water/2012/28-Feb-12.html.

Edmonton Journal. 2012. “Diverse Water Panel Welcome Idea” (Editorial), March 1, http://www.edmontonjournal.com/story_print.html?id=6231494&sponsor=.

Finlayson, David. 2010. “Government-ordered biofuels inviting a water crisis, Nestlé chairman warns,” Edmonton Journal (Business), 29 June.

Hughes, Linda and Indira Samarasekera, 2012. “Honorary Degree for Peter Brabeck-Letmathe,” University of Alberta Colloquy Blog posting, February 9, http://www.ualbertablog.ca/2012/02/honorary-degree-for-peter-brabeck.html.

Kaler, Amy. 2012.  “Nestlé chair poor choice for U of A degree.” Op-Ed column in the Edmonton Journal, February 22, http://www.edmontonjournal.com/life/Nestl%C3%A9+chair+poor+choice+degree/6189684/story.html.

Nestlé S.A. 2007. The Nestlé Water Management Report. Vevey, Switzerland: Nestlé S.A., Public Affairs, March, http://www.Nestlé.com/Common/NestléDocuments/Documents/Reports/CSV%20reports/Water/Water_management_report_2006_English.pdf.

Power, Samantha. 2012. “Water, water, everywhere: An honorary degree for the CEO of Nestlé causes international concern,” Vue Weekly, Issue #852, Feb. 15, http://vueweekly.com/front/story/water_water_everywhere2/.

Pratt, Sheila. 2012. “Professors fear honorary degree to Nestlé’s CEO will harm U of A’s international reputation,” Edmonton Journal, February 10, http://www.edmontonjournal.com/news/Professors+fear+honorary+degree+Nestlé+will+harm+international+reputation/6136088/story.html.

Pratt, Sheila. 2012. “U of A wants to take global leadership role on water issues,” edmontonjournal.com, February 27, http://www.edmontonjournal.com/wants+take+global+leadership+role+water+issues/6218791/story.html.

Pratt, Sheila. 2012. “U of A plans to enhance its leadership role on global water issues,”

Edmonton Journal,  February 28 (print issue), http://www.edmontonjournal.com/life/plans+enhance+leadership+role+global+water+issues/6220001/story.html.

Pratt, Sheila. 2012. “Updated: Debate continues to swirl over U of A honorary degree to Nestle exec,” edmontonjournal.com, February 29, http://www.edmontonjournal.com/life/Updated+Debate+continues+swirl+over+honorary+degree+Nestle+exec/6229038/story.html.

Simons, Paula. 2012. “Simons: Albertans must judge whether Nestlé executive good choice for honourary degree,” [sic] BLOG, edmontonjournal.com, February 14, http://www.canada.com/news/Simons+Albertans+must+judge+whether+Nestlé+executive+good+choice+honourary+degree/6153385/story.html.

Simons, Paula. 2012. “U of A stands behind controversial award; It’s up to Albertans to decide if honour to Nestlé chair is a good call.” Edmonton Journal, February 15, http://www.edmontonjournal.com/life/stands+behind+controversial+award/6154886/story.html.

Stockholm International Water Institute. 2011. SIWI Industry Award (webpage), with photo of award ceremony, August 24, http://www.siwi.org/documents/Resources/Synthesis/Overarching-Conclusions-2011.pdf.

————. 2012. “Executive Director at Stockholm International Water Institute takes on a new position in Washington.” Media release, January 10, http://www.siwi.org/sa/node.asp?node=1384.

2030 Water Resources Group. 2009. Charting Our Water Future: Economic frameworks to inform decision-making. World Bank, http://www.2030waterresourcesgroup.com/water_full/Charting_Our_Water_Future_Final.pdf.

Leave a comment